and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Show Tags

For the 1st question i chose the option as D. Here Two contradictory statements are being discusssed and that is the reason why i chose that option.Can you please explain the correct answer

Quote:

1) The main purpose of the passage is toA) propose an experimentB) analyze a functionC) refute an argumentD) explain a contradictionE) simulate a process

Yes, you could say that two seemingly contradictory ideas are discussed. But is the main PURPOSE of the passage to explain that contradiction? Is the author's intention to simply explain how Searle's idea differs from the dominate view? After reading this passage, would it make sense to say, "In conclusion, Searle's view contradicts the dominate view."?

Not quite. The author does indeed explain Searle's view, which does seem to contradict the dominate view in some ways. But the author is primarily concerned with CRITICIZING Searle's view. The author's main intention is to deny (refute) Searle's argument, so (C) is a better answer.

Re: The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Jan 2018, 04:17

The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine manipulating blips of energy according to fathomable rules—has come to dominate neuroscience. However, one enemy of the brain-as-computer metaphor is John R. Searle, a philosopher who argues that since computers simply follow algorithms, they cannot deal with important aspects of human thought such as meaning and content. Computers are syntactic, rather than semantic, creatures. People, on the other hand, understand meaning because they have something Searle obscurely calls the causal powers of the brain.

Yet how would a brain work if not by reducing what it learns about the world to information—some kind of code that can be transmitted from neuron to neuron? What else could meaning and content be? If the code can be cracked, a computer should be able to simulate it, at least in principle. But even if a computer could simulate the workings of the mind, Searle would claim that the machine would not really be thinking; it would just be acting as if it were. His argument proceeds thus: if a computer were used to simulate a stomach, with the stomach's churnings faithfully reproduced on a video screen, the machine would not be digesting real food. It would just be blindly manipulating the symbols that generate the visual display.

Suppose, though, that a stomach were simulated using plastic tubes, a motor to do the churning, a supply of digestive juices, and a timing mechanism. If food went in one end of the device, what came out the other end would surely be digested food. Brains, unlike stomachs, are information processors, and if one information processor were made to simulate another information processor, it is hard to see how one and not the other could be said to think. Simulated thoughts and real thoughts are made of the same element: information. The representations of the world that humans carry around in their heads are already simulations. To accept Searle's argument, one would have to deny the most fundamental notion in psychology and neuroscience: that brains work by processing information.

6) Which of the following most accurately represents Searle's criticism of the brain-as-computer metaphor, as that criticism is described in the passage?

(A) The metaphor is not experimentally verifiable.

(B) The metaphor does not take into account the unique powers of the brain.

(C) The metaphor suggests that a brain's functions can be simulated as easily as those of a stomach.

(D) The metaphor suggests that a computer can simulate the workings of the mind by using the codes of neural transmission.

(E) The metaphor is unhelpful because both the brain and the computer process information.

Passage: Searle

Question: Inference–Metaphor

The Simple Story

Most neuroscientists think of the brain as an information processor. The philosopher John Searle disagrees with this view, arguing that people can understand meaning and content, while computers cannot. The author, however, disagrees with Searle. She presents one of Searle’s arguments, related to simulated digestion, and refutes it. She then concludes that Searle’s argument is incompatible with a fundamental notion in psychology and neuroscience: that brains work by processing information.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

P1:

brain = info processor

Searle: computers can’t really think

Searle: human brain has ‘causal powers’

P2:

Author: brain = info processor

Searle: computer stomach not really digesting

→ computer brain not really thinking

P3:

Author: simulated stomach COULD really digest

Computer is the same, but with info

So: simulated thought = thought

Step 1: Identify the Question

The question asks for a statement that accurately represents Searle’s criticism. The right answer will not be written explicitly in the passage, but will accurately reflect what is written there. Therefore, this is an Inference question.

Step 2: Find the Support

Searle’s criticism of the brain-as-computer metaphor is described in the first paragraph.

“…since computers simply follow algorithms, they cannot deal with important aspects of human thought such as meaning and content. Computers are syntactic, rather than semantic, creatures. People, on the other hand, understand meaning because they have something Searle obscurely calls the causal powers of the brain.”

Step 3: Predict an Answer

Searle’s criticism is that a computer that follows algorithms can’t understand meaning and content, while the human mind can understand these things. This makes a computer an inaccurate metaphor for the human mind.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) Searle’s views on experimentation are not described in the passage.

(B) CORRECT. Searle’s criticism is that the human mind has a property that a computer lacks: the causal powers of the brain.

(C) Searle uses this example in order to argue that the stomach, like the brain, cannot be accurately simulated by a computer.

(D) Searle’s criticism does not involve the specifics of how information is transmitted in the brain, or whether a computer can simulate this transmission. Rather, Searle criticizes the implications of such a simulation: a computer simulation, he argues, wouldn’t actually be thinking.

(E) The fact that brains and computers both process information makes the metaphor between them more accurate, not less.
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Re: The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Jan 2018, 04:26

Vercules wrote:

The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine manipulating blips of energy according to fathomable rules—has come to dominate neuroscience. However, one enemy of the brain-as-computer metaphor is John R. Searle, a philosopher who argues that since computers simply follow algorithms, they cannot deal with important aspects of human thought such as meaning and content. Computers are syntactic, rather than semantic, creatures. People, on the other hand, understand meaning because they have something Searle obscurely calls the causal powers of the brain.

Yet how would a brain work if not by reducing what it learns about the world to information—some kind of code that can be transmitted from neuron to neuron? What else could meaning and content be? If the code can be cracked, a computer should be able to simulate it, at least in principle. But even if a computer could simulate the workings of the mind, Searle would claim that the machine would not really be thinking; it would just be acting as if it were. His argument proceeds thus: if a computer were used to simulate a stomach, with the stomach's churnings faithfully reproduced on a video screen, the machine would not be digesting real food. It would just be blindly manipulating the symbols that generate the visual display.

Suppose, though, that a stomach were simulated using plastic tubes, a motor to do the churning, a supply of digestive juices, and a timing mechanism. If food went in one end of the device, what came out the other end would surely be digested food. Brains, unlike stomachs, are information processors, and if one information processor were made to simulate another information processor, it is hard to see how one and not the other could be said to think. Simulated thoughts and real thoughts are made of the same element: information. The representations of the world that humans carry around in their heads are already simulations. To accept Searle's argument, one would have to deny the most fundamental notion in psychology and neuroscience: that brains work by processing information.

1) The main purpose of the passage is to

A) propose an experimentB) analyze a functionC) refute an argumentD) explain a contradictionE) simulate a process

Most neuroscientists think of the brain as an information processor. The philosopher John Searle disagrees with this view, arguing that people can understand meaning and content, while computers cannot. The author, however, disagrees with Searle. She presents one of Searle’s arguments, related to simulated digestion, and refutes it. She then concludes that Searle’s argument is incompatible with a fundamental notion in psychology and neuroscience: that brains work by processing information.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

P1:

brain = info processor

Searle: computers can’t really think

Searle: human brain has ‘causal powers’

P2:

Author: brain = info processor

Searle: computer stomach not really digesting

→ computer brain not really thinking

P3:

Author: simulated stomach COULD really digest

Computer is the same, but with info

So: simulated thought = thought

Step 1: Identify the Question

The words main purpose in the question stem indicate that this is a Primary Purpose question.

Step 2: Find the Support

The support for a Primary Purpose question is found in the main point(s) of the passage as a whole, not in any specific detail. Briefly review your passage map to find the support for this question.

Step 3: Predict an Answer

The majority of the passage is spent refuting Searle’s argument. The author finally concludes that accepting Searle’s argument would mean denying the most fundamental notion in psychology and neuroscience. The primary purpose of this passage is to argue against Searle’s views.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) The passage does propose an experiment (the simulated stomach), but it only does so in order to counter one of Searle’s arguments. The broader purpose, therefore, is to refute Searle’s views about human thought.

(B) The function mentioned here is presumably the information-processing function of the human brain. The passage doesn’t solely present its own analysis, however. Instead, it analyzes this function in order to refute Searle’s analysis.

(C) CORRECT. The passage first introduces, then refutes, Searle’s argument.

(D) The passage does not describe any of its ideas as a contradiction.

(E) The topic of the passage is, in part, the simulation of physical processes (digestion and thinking). However, the passage itself does not simulate these processes. Instead, it discusses some hypothetical simulations (without performing them), and disagrees with Searle’s view on what these simulations would imply.
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Jan 2018, 05:34

gmat4varun wrote:

Fifth question is something I am still not very clear . How Answer Option A is correct ?

5. From the passage, it can be inferred that the author would agree with Searle on which of the following points?Computers operate by following algorithms.

In the first paragraph Searle: computers fallows algorithms and cannot deal with important aspects of human thought such as meaning and content. However, one enemy of the brain-as-computer metaphor is John R. Searle, a philosopher who argues that since computers simply follow algorithms, they cannot deal with important aspects of human thought such as meaning and content. Computers are syntactic, rather than semantic, creatures.

In the second paragraph The author refutes what Searle says, by pointing out that even the brains need to work like algorithms--interpret and transfer the informationYethow would a brain work if not by reducing what it learns about the world to information—some kind of code that can be transmitted from neuron to neuron? What else could meaning and content be? If the code can be cracked, a computer should be able to simulate it, at least in principle. But even if a computer could simulate the workings of the mind, Searle would claim that the machine would not really be thinking

The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Jan 2018, 14:00

Transcendentalist wrote:

Vercules wrote:

The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine manipulating blips of energy according to fathomable rules—has come to dominate neuroscience. However, one enemy of the brain-as-computer metaphor is John R. Searle, a philosopher who argues that since computers Simply follow algorithms, they cannot deal with important aspects of human thought such as meaning and content. Computers are syntactic, rather than semantic, creatures. People, on the other hand, understand meaning because they have something Searle obscurely calls the causal powers of the brain.

Yet how would a brain work if not by reducing what it learns about the world to information—some kind of code that can be transmitted from neuron to neuron? What else could meaning and content be? If the code can be cracked, a computer should be able to simulate it, at least in principle. But even if a computer could simulate the workings of the mind, Searle would claim that the machine would not really be thinking; it would just be acting as if it were. His argument proceeds thus: if a computer were used to simulate a stomach, with the stomach's churnings faithfully reproduced on a video screen, the machine would not be digesting real food. It would just be blindly manipulating the symbols that generate the visual display.

Suppose, though, that a stomach were simulated using plastic tubes, a motor to do the churning, a supply of digestive juices, and a timing mechanism. If food went in one end of the device, what came out the other end would surely be digested food. Brains, unlike stomachs, are information processors, and if one information processor were made to simulate another information processor, it is hard to see how one and not the other could be said to think. Simulated thoughts and real thoughts are made of the same element: information. The representations of the world that humans carry around in their heads are already simulations. To accept Searle's argument, one would have to deny the most fundamental notion in psychology and neuroscience: that brains work by processing information.

6) Which of the following most accurately represents Searle's criticism of the brain-as-computer metaphor, as that criticism is described in the passage?A) The metaphor is not experimentally verifiable.B) The metaphor does not take into account the unique powers of the brain.C) The metaphor suggests that a brain's functions can be simulated as easily as those of a stomach.D) The metaphor suggests that a computer can simulate the workings of the mind by using the codes of neural transmission.E) The metaphor is unhelpful because both the brain and the computer process information.

In the passage Searle did not question the experimental authenticity of the metaphor. Hence Incorrect.

B. The metaphor does not take into account the unique powers

In the passage, the author states that Searle criticizes the metaphor because he thinks the brain powers cannot be simulated simply because it is complex and unique doe every being.

" Searle, a philosopher who argues that since computers Simply follow algorithms, they cannot deal with important aspects of human thought such as meaning and content. Computers are syntactic, rather than semantic, creatures. People, on the other hand, understand meaning because they have something Searle obscurely calls the causal powers of the brain." The words 'meaning' and 'content' are the unique abilities of the brain considered to be important by Searle, therefore he thinks that 'Brain as a computer' is wrong because it would underestimate the abilities of the human brains by comparing it to something inferior. Hence 'B' is Correct.

C. The metaphor suggests that a brain's functions can be simulated as easily as those of a stomach.

Irrelevant and Searle makes no such comparison. Incorrect.

D. The metaphor suggests that a computer can simulate the workings of the mind by using the codes of neural transmission.

This might seem like a good option at first but look at the metaphor 'Brain as a computer'. The metaphor is not suggesting the capabilities of a computer but underestimating the capabilities of a human brain which is Searle's main concern. 'D' is the opposite of the metaphor. Hence Incorrect.

E. The metaphor is unhelpful because both the brain and the computer process information.

This is the opposite of Searle's claim. In the last paragraph the author states "To accept Searle's argument, one would have to deny the most fundamental notion in psychology and neuroscience: that brains work by processing information" which means that Searle was of the view that brains do not work by processing information. Option 'E' states that Searle thought both computers and brains process information which is against the claim of Searle and the whole passage. Hence Incorrect.

gmatclubot

The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine
[#permalink]
24 Jan 2018, 14:00

MBA Acceptance Rate by Undergraduate Major Many applicants may wonder if their undergraduate major impacts their chance of getting into business school. Admissions data suggests that your college major...